out for special criticism. On the contrary, as I make
clear later, whilst the importance of this work lies in
the way in which it signals some of the core concerns
of the contemporary moment and in the way in which
it speaks to a new generation of social geographers,
it is in no sense unique in its more general character-
istics. In addition, using (dis)ability as an exemplar
has the added advantage of connecting to the con-
cerns of the next chapter in this section.
4 See, for example, Butler (1994), Butler and Bowlby
(1997), Butler and Parr (1999), Chouinard (1997),
Chouinard and Grant (1995), Dear et al. (1997), Dyck
(1995), Gleeson (1996; 1997), Golledge et al. (1979;
1991), Hall (2000), Imrie (1996a and b), Lovett and
Gattrell (1988), Parr (1999).
5 See, for example, Dorn and Laws (1994), Duncan
(1996), Johnston (1996), Longhurst (1995; 2000a;
2000b), McCormack (1999), McDowell and Court
(1994), Mowl et al. (2000), Nast and Pile (1998), Pile
(1996), Simonsen (2000).
6 Besides disability research, recent work on children,
youth and the elderly is also indicative of this
tendency, as is that on pregnant bodies, breast-feeding
and body work. It might be argued that work on
subjects defined by age is a less clear-cut case of the
bodily; that age is no more than a social construction,
and that the categories of children, the elderly and so
on are no more than ones which society inscribes on
particular types of human bodies. But the point is that
these inscriptions depend on specific physiological
and mental changes and/or transformations (grey
hair, memory loss, small bodies, prepubescent bodies,
physical frailty, etc.) to make sense.
7 This is not to say that bodies cannot be bought and
sold: prostitution, surrogacy and organ exchange pro-
vide various instances of precisely this. Nonetheless,
certain forms of such exchange remain the exception
rather than the norm, and the commodification of
body parts – if not certain female bodies – is the
subject of intense ethical debate.
8 This is not to deny that cities and neighbourhoods
cannot be conceptualized differently and in ways
more accordant with body theory/ies – as networks
and flows, for example. But it is to question the
merits of such thinking in relation to such objects.
9 See, too, the feminist critique of this position: for
example, Jones and Jonasdottir (1988), McIntosh
(1978), Watson (1990), Wilson (1977).
10 In arguing this line I am drawing on some of the core
tenets within my own recent work, as well as on that
of others working in the consumption field (Gregson
and Crewe, 1997a; 1997b; Miller, 1998a; Miller et al.,
1998; Slater, 1997). It is also perhaps worth noting
that this type of work is seldom positioned within
social geography, being more commonly represented
as either cultural or economic in orientation. As well
as providing further grist to previous arguments, my
intention in developing this position here is to point
to the way/s in which a materialist reading of society
should not be equated automatically with a revision-
ist political economy position. Such assumptionsseem to me currently to bedevil much of the
reconfigured social geography literature, and work to
inhibit hinging ‘the social’ to a wider understanding
of societal reproduction.
11 For a rather different take on talk, which concentrates
on the differences between talk and text, see Laurier
(1998). For work discussing the importance of talk
within organizations, see Boden (1994), Cameron
(2000), du Gay (1996) and Leidner (1993).REFERENCESAitken, S. (1994) Children’s Geographies.Washington,
DC: Association of American Geographers.
Aitken, S. and Herman, T. (1997) ‘Gender, power and crib
geography: transitional spaces and potential spaces’,
Gender Place and Culture4: 63–88.
Bauman, Z. (1998) Work, Consumerism and the New
Poor. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bell, D. and Valentine, G. (eds) (1995) Mapping Desire.
London: Routledge.
Bingham, N., Valentine, G. and Holloway, S. (1999)
‘Where do you want to go tomorrow? Connecting
children and the Internet’, Environment and Planning
D: Society and Space17: 655–72.
Boden, D. (1994) The Business of Talk: Organizations and
Action.Cambridge: Polity.
Breugel, I. (1996) ‘Gendering the polarization debate: a
comment on Hamnett’s social polarization, economic
restructuring and welfare regimes’, Urban Studies
33: 1431–9.
Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble.London: Routledge.
Butler, J. (1993) Bodies that Matter.London: Routledge.
Butler, R. (1994) ‘Geography and vision-impaired and
blind populations’, Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers19: 366–8.
Butler, R. and Bowlby, S. (1997) ‘Bodies and spaces: an
exploration of disabled people’s experiences of public
space’, Environment and Planning D: Society and
Space15: 411–33.
Butler, R. and Parr, H. (eds) (1999) Mind and Body
Spaces: Geographies of Illness, Impairment and
Disability.London: Routledge.
Cameron, D. (2000) Good to Talk? Organizations in
Action.London: Sage.
Chouinard, V. (1997) ‘Making space for disabling differ-
ences: challenging ableist geographies’, Environment
and Planning D: Society and Space15: 379–87.
Chouinard, V. (1999) ‘Body politics: disabled women’s
activism in Canada and beyond’, in R. Butler and
H. Parr (eds) Mind and Body Spaces.London:
Routledge. pp. 269–94.
Chouinard, V. and Grant, A. (1995) ‘On being not any-
where near “the project”’, Antipode27: 137–66.
Crossley, N. (1995) ‘Merleau Ponty, the elusive body and
carnal sociology’, Body and Society1: 46–63.
Crossley, N. (1997) ‘Corporeality and communicative
action: embodying the renewal of critical theory’, Body
and Society3: 17–46.RECLAIMING ‘THE SOCIAL’ 553029-ch01.qxd 03-10-02 10:25 AM Page 55